Raymond Jessop's probability of Paternity.

I smell yet another basis for appeal, again, assuming there is a conviction. And Brooke? Bravo again.

From the Plural Life:

"Prior probability assigns a 50 percent likelihood to the calculation. Hudson argued that biased the outcome, because there was an assumption from the get-go that there was a one in two chance that Jessop was the father and that violates the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial.

'Before you ever did the testing the alleged father was predicted to be the father,' he said to Smuts.

'Hypothetically,' she said.

He asked Smuts to explain the scientific theory that supports use of that 50 percent probability and she said: 'It is factored into the equation.'

And then: 'It is assuming the alleged father, the tested man, is either the biological father or he is not the biological father.'

Hudson argued that if a different probability — a lower probability — was used, the outcome might look quite different. He even handed Smuts Jerry Goldstein’s IPhone so she could use its built-in calculator to try it.

But Tanner objected and Walther agreed, shutting down the experiment."

The trial is proving to be intellectually entertaining. I don't mean in a non serious way, perhaps I should say instead of entertaining, it is thought provoking or stimulating.

If I understand it correctly the assumption of the state in claiming 99.99998 paternity certainty for Raymond Jessop is based on a 50/50 chance to start with, that he was the father. Frankly I would have guessed something higher, but the defense is entirely correct to say "we don't know" and in not knowing a different starting number should be used to determine Raymond Jessop's paternity. I'm sure Walther knows this, but she shut down the attempt to graphically prove the fallacy of Amy Smuts' number.

How this works. As a criminal proceeding goes, we must agree on a number of possible consorts "Mrs" Jessop had. If you assume all the fertile males she came in contact with around about the time of conception, just limited to FLDS men on the ranch or frequenting the ranch on or around the date of her child's conception, the number might be 1% or 1/10th of 1% to start with. This would assume between 100-1000 available males, with which to consort. Not knowing the entire equation I can't reliably say what that does to the outcome, but perhaps it makes Raymond Jessop a 10% probable father, as opposed to his neighbor, who would be a 1% probable father. The state is already claiming Raymond's wife was "reassigned" so it may very well be a given that she has had more than one sex partner. Has she had more? Personally I doubt it and I am not trying to besmirch her, but the state has to assume that someone who has not been sexually exclusive might continue to be "non exclusive" so on the face of it, the child's father is probably "non hispanic," "non African," "non Asian." You get the picture.

Raymond's paternity is not certainty. Not even if the manipulated formula came up with a 49.9999% probability would it be certainty or even 74.9999% and this is what the defense and the prosecution are arguing, and Walther did not just "side" with the prosecution in terms of allowing the testimony, Walther sided with the prosecution in a partisan way. She didn't Amy to use the calculator, even when the jury was not present.

There is a reason for this. You don't allow that testimony because you know what the outcome will be. Amy's number would drop precipitously and her "certainty" would become a "best guess." The Jury went HOME over the weekend. Don't kid yourself, this biased blow by blow description of Amy's credibility will get into the jury pool. They are not sequestered. Walter did not allow Amy to use the calculator precisely because it's a "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" moment.

Instead Walther has chosen to make it a contest in court. That allows what may very well be a stacked jury to decide they "believe" one "expert" more than another and it becomes a contest of "personalities" as opposed to facts.

Face it, a Raymond Jessop that the PROSECUTION acknowledges to have a 50% probability of paternity, shouldn't have even been brought to trial. I'd like to see what those adjusted numbers turn out to be.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Flu Schmu

It really was an excuse to vet a witness. If the witness is for the prosecution, what will Walther do?

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Amy Smuts, a forensic analyst with the University of North Texas Health Science Center, testified without the jury present so 51st District Judge Barbara Walther could rule whether she was a relevant and reliable state witness.

The judge made that finding after Smuts' 2 1/2 hour turn on the witness stand."

So Walther does rule the witness is reliable. The defense protested that Smuts had used a different set of probabilities earlier. Yet another possible basis for appeal, should Raymond be convicted.

What did I tell you?

"Walther has not yet said whether the jury will be called back (today) to hear more testimony in the case against Jessop, who faces a second-degree charge of sexual assault of a minor."

There is no concern regarding the possible swine flu infection of a juror or her child. We just needed a minute or two alone, away from the jury.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Never Mind on Bigamy

Callahan County Attorney Shane Deel boldly went where Texas fears to tread, or where other prosecutors feared to tread. Now it's just too much money, supposedly:

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram - "Two significant factors contributed to the decision to dismiss the bigamy charges, Deel said.

'First, the change of venue made the case financially impractical to try. Second, there were some substantial issues with the case and the statute of limitations,' Deel said.

'While we literally have a mountain of evidence against Yisrayl Hawkins in relation to these cases, most of it dates back to before 2005. At that time bigamy was a Class A misdemeanor with only a two-year limitations period,' he said. 'While I can make an argument about the continuing nature of the conduct, it is simply not worth the county's resources to pursue the case in Parker County with the necessary expenses that that will entail when the outcome is as uncertain as it is.' "

Blah, blah, blah.

Yisrayl Hawkins will serve 15 months probabtion after pleading "nolo" to violations of child labor laws along with paying a $2000.00 fine.

Your Modern Pharisee is no fan of Yisrayl, but after all of that noise, a $2000.00 fine and 15 months probation?

The Abilene Reporter-News - "John Young, one of Yisrayl Hawkins’ attorneys, said, 'Mr. Hawkins is relieved to have this over with. The outcome was not only fair, it was prudent. My client accepts responsibility for violating child labor laws, but we feel that under the circumstances, there was no factual basis in which a felony charges were appropriate.'

The Sweetwater attorney said the plea agreement saved taxpayers 'tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars.'

'Mr. Hawkins' role with the church, and his role as a pastor will not be affected in any way as a result of the plea agreement,' Young said."

Hat tip to Christian or Biblical Polygamy. What does this portend for eventual bigamy prosecutions in the FLDS cases? They will probably be dropped as well. They're just window dressing.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Flu Stops Trial?

I'm not saying it's never happened before, but I've never heard of it happening before.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Fifty-first District Judge Barbara Walther stopped proceedings around 2:45 p.m. and told the courtroom that the juror's child, who is under the age of five, is running a high fever and 'may have swine flu.'

'We are in recess at least until the child is well,' the judge said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people infected with the H1N1 flu are contagious from one day before getting sick to five to seven days after -- and the infectious period can be even longer in children. The CDC recommends that those who become sick with the flu stay home for at least 24 hours after the fever breaks.

Walther said court will reconvene Friday at 10 a.m. without the jury that is hearing the case against Jessop, 38, who faces one second-degree count of sexually assaulting a child."

What's happening? Perhaps just the flu but couldn't Judge Walther, who seems to have committed to getting it done it two weeks just plug in an alternate and go on? That is what alternates are for, aren't they? Is one or both of the alternates a juror that doesn't fit the prosecution's plans?

Since I am inclined to believe that Walther does all with a plan, and is very efficient executing those plans, this doesn't fit unless it serves a purpose. The fact that court reconvenes at 10am tomorrow without a jury tells me this is being used perhaps as a break, to discuss something important that has just come up. Juror 12 maybe?

That would fit with not wanting to boot the flu juror since if she is not juror 12, and if juror 12 is an issue, that's both alternates soaked up right away. I have heard of trials going forward with reduced slates of jurors.

It just seems a bit fishy to me, as if something came up, and a juror's kid had the flu and it represented a great time to stop down and talk things over, with the pig flu, for cover. We may never know.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Juror 12

Kudos to Brooke Adams.

The Plural Life/Brooke Adams - "Juror No. 12, Deborah Ballew.

She is the wife of Ray Ballew, who was the foreman of the grand jury that indicted (Raymond) Jessop. I confirmed her identify through a photograph I found online, several stories linking her and Ray and with one of my contacts in the community."

This is not against the law. Neither is it against the law though, for FLDS members to serve on the Jury but all were excluded. Somehow though, Deborah Ballew, who is the most intimate partner on earth, to the man who indicted Raymond Jessop, is a fit juror.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS "Real Estate" defense

Location, Location, Location.

The Houston Chronicle - "In opening statements Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Eric Nichols said DNA, witnesses and boxes of documents will prove Jessop had sex with the girl in 2004 because a child born the following year is his biological daughter.

However, the case requires prosecutors to prove a sexual assault occurred in Texas, a point Jessop's San Antonio defense team did not waste time making during Wednesday's opening statements.

'The prosecutor is not going to be able to prove by circumstantial evidence (or) direct evidence ... because there is no evidence that Raymond Jessop assaulted (the girl) on or about Nov. 14, 2009 in Schleicher County, Texas,' defense lawyer Mark Stevens said."

So, you prove Raymond is the Father. Who's to say the "assault" wasn't an assault because both families happened to be vacationing in Mexico? The "crime" does require some form of "premeditation" for it to be a "Mann Act" violation. If I meet (as I have) a girl from near my home at a convention in Atlanta, did I transport her across state lines to perform an illegal act? Not if she went there on her own, I would suppose. What if I "discovered" here there? In any case, it is not a crime in the state we both came from. It would be a different sort of crime at best.

By the way, this girl that I met in reality, was not a sex partner, I just met her out of state and she was from where I was as well. What we did there, if it had been a violation of the law, would not have been part of a "conspiracy" to leave the state to perform an illegal act.

Put another way, let us suppose you are both Mexican, and you have sex in Mexico, she gets pregnant, and she is 12. 12 is the age of consent in Mexico. You both move to Texas when she is 4 weeks pregnant. Are you guilty of sexual abuse of a child?

The shortest form of this discussion is, how does the state of Texas prove that Raymond Jessop had sex with anyone, below the age of consent, in Texas?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sam Zell, on Newspapers

There won't be any.

I am certain there will be exceptions, but the role of the newspaper is now set to change and there will be a lot less of them.

Unless there is a major depression, so severe that our infrastructure crumbles, this, right here, is how you will get your news. On a video screen.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Walther Brooms all FLDS members from Jury (UPDATED)

Can you say appeal? "Patterico" apparently can:

The Salt Lake Tribune - "The jury in the trial, being held before 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, includes seven women and seven men; five are Latino; none is a member of the FLDS sect."

Statistically that is nearly impossible, unless of course, you are after a particular group of people.

From most counts nearly one in three surviving juror candidates late yesterday were FLDS, none made it to the jury.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Professor Arnold Loewy, a Texas Tech University law professor, said dismissing the FLDS members out of hand from the pool of prospective jurors might raise questions of religious freedom and of whether Raymond Jessop is getting a fair trial from a jury of his peers, but prosecutor Eric Nichols will likely strive to purge the FLDS sect members from the jury pool."

Of course, no motives are assigned to Walther.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jury? Trial starts at 3:30pm (UPDATED)

There may has been an announcement soon.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Judge Barbara Walther this morning dismissed another 44 prospective jurors.

A crowd of prospective jurors who had been summoned for a 10:30 a.m. appearance today at the Memorial Building in Eldorado were told to come back at noon.

Walther said further announcements will be made by noon, fueling speculation that she may be ready to seat a jury."

UPDATE (2:25PM EDT) - SAN ANGELO, Texas — ELDORADO — "A jury has been seated in the trial of polygamous sect member Raymond Merril Jessop.

Judge Barbara Walther announced that a jury had been chosen out of the original 300-member jury pool after two and a half days of selection.

The trial will begin with opening arguments by the prosecution and defense this afternoon at 3:30 p.m. The trial will take place in the Memorial Building in Eldorado, the same location where jury selection occurred. Two weeks has been set aside for the trial."

I'm quite cynical about this, and figure she found a way to broom all the FLDS jurors. We'll see though.

I always supply a motivation or two to Walther, one of which is that she is part of the prosecution, the other being she figures a guilty child molester's conviction will be a prickly thing to overturn, regardless of how it was arrived at.

Brooke Adams "Twittered" the following:

"Seven men and seven women on jury in Raymond Jessop trial. Five are Hispanic."

That's 12 and 2 alternates. No word on whether or not the 14 contain FLDS members, or whether they are alternates or regular jurors.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Meanwhile, back in Colorado....

Here's a first. Rozita's pre-trial conference is NOT on the "Call off" list for today in Colorado Springs.

There is nothing to say that it might not appear later, or that at the pre-trial conference, more delays are in the offing, but she's not on the list today, which may mean she's actually there. You can look yourself, but only until about 9am tomorrow when it's updated to show Thursday's "Call Offs." If you recall, her trial is set for November 10th.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Slogging it out in Jury Selection

It's a safe bet that potential juror #76 was not FLDS.

The Houston Chronicle - "(J)ury interviews plodded along at a drowsy pace for as long as 20 minutes as attorneys carefully explained how they would have to set aside what they knew about the case, which prompted by a unprecedented removal of 439 FLDS children by Texas Child Protective Services that gained nationwide attention, and consider only the facts introduced by attorneys.

Still other jurors, including the last juror of Tuesday night, No. 76, made quick work of their interview, after telling the judge her mind was already made up about the case and she could not be impartial."

This feature continues to disturb and seems out of character with Texas law, to put it mildly:

"The jury interviews, conducted for two days in a hushed huddle before Walther, were out of earshot for court spectators who were confined to the back of the courtroom."

With those that do not want to "Get involved" and those that want to but will be shunned by the prosecution (FLDS Members) it seems rather difficult to believe at this point that there will be 12 jurors and 2 alternates. Never fear, Walther as noted above, and in past behavior is unafraid of bending the law autocratically.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's really not a secret, it's jury stacking (or venue shopping)

What's going on here?

The Salt Lake Tribune - "The second day began as the first ended: With pool members being brought one at a time to the bench of 51st District Judge Barbara Walther where discussions are held with prosecutors and defense attorneys. None of those exchanges can be heard at the back of the courtroom, where other prospective jurors and media are seated.

Under Texas law, voir dire of potential jurors must take place in open court."

The prosecution is trying to prevent FLDS members, from sitting on the Jury. That has to be done so as to not look discriminatory, but that's what's being done. Texas pretty much knows that if 3 FLDS members make it to a jury, the jig is up and the best they can hope for is a hung jury. Pretty much one juror from the FLDS will do the trick, but if the judge can sit only one, she can replace that juror later for "misconduct" with an alternate.

From where I sit, I don't see how there is a "right" of the state to have a fair and open chance to gain a conviction. The state, has no rights. The defendant does. They can seat juries easily for all of the upcoming trials in one morning. Simply don't object to FLDS members on the jury, that's all.

This comes from not recognizing the lost right of "jury nullification."

"Nullification has a mixed history in the United States. Jury nullification appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act because jurors felt the laws to be unjust. During the 20th century, especially in the civil rights movement era, some all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks. During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time due to disagreements with the justice of the law. This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition."

"(In) Georgia v. Brailsford (1794), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that juries have an absolute right to judge both the law and the facts of a case: And the Court thus established a precedent for the basic right to jury nullification."

Texas does not have a right to enforce it's laws, essentially, on a community that simply doesn't accept them. A defendant can elect to a trial by his/her peers, and if those peers don't see the law being applied as just, they can just sleep through the trial, and vote not guilty. By trying to NOT seat a jury, Texas tries to violate a basic right of each individual in the community, and that of the defendant.

All of this is window dressing for claiming on appeal, "why no, I did not discriminate against FLDS members," so the prosecution is looking for every legal fig leaf they can find. 12 men and women will happily come forward, but in reality, Texas wants a change of venue.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jury Selection in the Trial of Raymond Jessop (UPDATED AGAIN)

Brooke Adams (with whom I have a massive approach/avoidance issue) is someone I continue to regard as a great writer/reporter and also someone who conceals a severe bias, but she does make the great critical observation from time to time, and here is one.

The Plural Life - "There are about 2,100 residents of the county who are 18 or older."

This is the basic jury pool from which persons begin to be disqualified right away.

"The big question, of course, is whether there are 14 people — 12 jurors and 2 alternates — in Schleicher County that do not already have an opinion about the FLDS."

And this is what makes me wonder. The O.J. Simpson trial for his supposed murder of his wife and another was held close to home in what had to be a massively tainted jury pool. O.J. was IMHO opinion, guilty. There were some disturbing questions that schooled around the O.J. trial, some of which place me on the side of his conviction (which did not occur) and some of which did not. I tend to think it is an excellent example of a foundational right in this country, of "jury nullification." One that is so seldom discussed that we are about to lose it altogether, as a right.

I confess to finding O.J. acquittal supporters infuriatingly political, there was one interview of onlookers at the time, black onlookers in the Los Angeles area, where it was asked "Do you think he will/should be acquitted?" and the answer was an emphatic YES, and then an astoundingly insightful follow up question by the reporter who then asked the same person if they though O.J. was guilty. The answer was an equally quick and sincere YES. Essentially the onlooker (and I think ultimately the jury) said "I don't care if he's guilty, I'm not going to convict him."

My interpretation of that, and it was the view of many at the time, is black Americans saw themselves as a separate group within the country, and a severely oppressed one. It was a chance to strike back and declare they as a group felt railroaded all too many times and the Simpson trial was a way to say that.

Consider yourselves heard.

On balance, what further threat did O.J. represent to society? He was successfully sued in a second trial to recover the proceeds of his book speculating on "What if" he did do it. While adamant that he should have been convicted, I was equally adamant that if he was pronounced "Not Guilty" then no one should be able to use the assumption of his guilt to recover money from him. I was disappointed with O.J. now on two fronts, but he did not recover any money from the whole business it would seem, he did not kill again, and eventually he did a massively stupid thing in Nevada and will probably die in jail for it.

This illustrates the threat to society of a lone criminal, or even a group of criminals. What threat are they on balance to me? None. If I have met a Mafioso I haven't known it. The closest I came to meeting one was Jimmy Hoffa's book keeper who is probably now passed away. It led to my personal but largely unsubstantiated (but plausible) theory of what happened to Mr. Hoffa. If true, he will never be found. I digress. The point? I have not been visibly harmed to a great degree by the presence of organized crime (I certainly disapprove) and I was not shot by O.J. The fact that criminals do go free and do what they do again, or that organized crime kills and steals and harms us all is not lost on me. The question is of comparative threat.

Back to Raymond and his various compatriots on trial in Schleicher County. Is it a right of Government to have an assurance, constitutionally, of having a fair shot and convicting any particular defendant. I have to say no. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial (by a jury of your peers) are those of the defendant(s), not of the prosecution. It has been suggested that the trial may be moved because a jury cannot be seated in Schleicher County. If the trial is massively unfair in favor of the defendant, what precisely is the harm? I submit, as framed by our founders, none.

This "right" though, to "get 'em if they are guilty," now seems embedded in the public consciousness and it would seem that a change of venue might be asked for by the prosecution. I don't even know if that's possible, but I suspect it may be so. It shouldn't be. If Raymond Jessop wants to be tried in Eldorado, he should be tried in Eldorado. If they can only find 14 jurors (2 alternates and 12 regulars) then that's all they can find, and the trial should proceed. If the defense deems those jurors too tainted to try their client, it is Raymond's right to change venue, or it should be. Again, IMHO.

"The names of some residents who’ve been called as potential jurors are trickling out. Michelle Roberts of The Associated Press quoted Success editor Randy Mankin as saying he, his mother and his son (a photographer for the newspaper) are in the pool. Mike Kelly over at the San Angelo Standard-Times reports a court clerk got a summons."

Those folks? Probably going home. Who else?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The trial will be a strain for Williams’ office: It will be closed Monday because she and her deputy will be in court, and her only remaining deputy was summonsed for jury selection."

Back to Brooke's blog:

"Here are the seven sure-fire, automatic ways to get out of serving on this jury:

1. Over the age of 70. (According to Williams, this is the No. 1 reason for dismissals so far.)

2. Legal custody of a child or children under 15 and services would leave them without adequate supervision.

3. You are a student at a public or private high school.

4. You are enrolled and in actual attendance at an institution of higher education.

5. You are an officer or employee of the Texas Senate, House of Representatives, or any department, commission, board or office or other agency in the legislative branch of state government.

6. You are a primary caretaker of a person who is an invalid, unable to care for her or himself (does not apply to health care workers).

7. You are a member of the U.S. military forces serving on active duty and are deployed to a location away from your home station and out of your county of residence."

There are 12 men to try, and here is the initial call:

"Court Clerk Peggy Williams told (Brooke) a couple weeks ago that of the 300 people sent jury summons, about half are likely to show up. The no-shows either have moved out of the county or qualify for an automatic jury exemption."

After challenges, which Judge Walther must be sure are fair (I'm not sure she can manage that, it's not her nature) there may have to be a second call. In all Schleicher will plow through 1/7th of their available jurors in this first trial, and there are 11 trials to go. That 1/7th number may go substantially higher. It's conceivable that a full third of the jury pool may be spent on this first trial.

So what if they cannot find 12 men (or women) good and true to seat as a jury that is not perhaps, biased in favor of acquittal? Is this not their own fault, the prosecution? Should the presumed innocent be forced to pay for the peeing in the jury pool that Texas has already done? Shouldn't it be that if you can only find persons prejudiced for acquittal, that they should be seated and the trials go on?

If you don't want to try the trial before the trial, don't. If you do and it forces you to select jurors predisposed to acquit, then it's O.J. all over again, and I think I'm alright with that.

The comparative threat by a lawless government, is much greater.

UPDATE! - Brooke is "Twittering" that there are 12 FLDS members, that she has been able to count, so far, in the jury pool. That's close to 10% of the available jurors.

UPDATE 2 - Brooke twitters again: 153 prospective jurors showed up. So far 19 have been released after privately pleading case at bench with judge and attorneys. I wish she would tell us if any of that first flight out included FLDS members. It does sound like the first 19 were making their excuses though.

UPDATE 3, again referring to Brooke. the 19 included the obvious like Randy Mankin of the Eldorado Success. 153 jurors, 19 excused, maybe more later. That's now 134 jurors out of which 10% can be figured to be FLDS since Brooke was able to "eyeball" identify at least 12 she knew, all of whom appear eager to do jury duty.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Commando Coffee

And if you look through my second story window at 6am, past the plants, with a telescope, I daresay the view might be even more shocking.

The Telegraph - "Eric Williamson, from Springfield, Virginia, was brewing coffee in his kitchen when a woman and a seven-year-old boy walked past the window and saw him.

The woman complained to police who arrested Williamson shortly after the incident on Monday morning.

Williamson, 29, insisted he did nothing wrong and that any exposure of his private parts were accidental.

'Yes I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me,' he said."

My goodness Eric, pull the drapes or move the kitchen to the second floor and put some plants in the window. And to the woman who reported him? Laugh, and don't look again. Sheesh.

This reminds me of neighbors in Texas. When they couldn't get a good look, they flew over and took pictures. When they still couldn't see anything, they went in with a swat team.

And yes, I often don't wear a thing from the time I hit the sack until the coffee is started. No one is lining up to look and I'm sure no one wants to.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Stewie prostitutes self with shameless plug

I had such faith in him too.

It's sad when your heros fall.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Canada May Legalize Polygamy

When charges against Winston Blackmore and Jim Oler were dropped, many of us thought the great polygamy challenge we hoped for in Canada, was done for the foreseeable future. Wrongo.

FoxNews - "Attorney General Mike de Jong said he believes polygamy is against the law and should remain so, but he said the justice system needs clarity about whether Canada's law barring multiple marriages is constitutional.

Two Canadian laws stand in contradiction: Polygamy is banned, and religious freedoms are firmly protected.

The move comes a month after a judge quashed polygamy charges against two leaders of a polygamous community in western Canada. The judge ruled the province did not have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to consider the cases of Winston Blackmore and James Oler after previous prosecutors recommended against charges.

The government has decided to seek the British Columbia Supreme Court opinion rather than appeal that court ruling. De Jong said the case may ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada."

Hip Hip Hooray for Mike de Jong then. The only benefit to pro polygyny advocates of polygyny persecutions is that one day prosecuters will maneuver themselves into a court challenge that strikes down anti polygamy laws.

Thanks Mike. Bravo. Let's have our day in court.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Charming, I vote death by "Swirlie"

When you're a drunk, you use whatever weapon is at hand.

WPTZ-Burlington, VT - "Nazeih Hammouri, 53, of Vershire, faces a first-degree assault charge in connection with the Monday morning stabbing.

Vermont State Police said they were called to Hammouri's home on Parker Road just after midnight and their investigation revealed Hammouri had stabbed his 19-year-old son in the stomach after an argument over a clogged toilet."

Death by Swirlie! Or, maybe just a swirlie. In the same toilet. Once a day for the next 10 years.

"Police said Hammouri was drinking. He is being held on $15,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in Orange County Court Monday afternoon."

At least he doesn't drink the cheap stuff, it had a cork you know. Maybe he should be sentenced to drink only that with a screw on cap. The weapon was a corkscrew. Vershire, only 34 miles, from my house.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The best comment on Limbaugh's exclusion from NFL ownership

It's from sportswriter Armando Salguero, who covers the Miami Dolphins for the Miami Herald:

"The hypocrisy on this issue is everywhere. It is rampant. It is sickening.

The same commissioner that is allowing dog-killer Michael Vick to play in the NFL doesn't want Limbaugh to vie for an ownership stake because, 'We're all held to a high standard here and divisive comments are not what the NFL's all about,' Goodell said earlier this week. 'I would not want to see those kind of comments from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, no. Absolutely not.'

So the league allows dog-killers, wife-beaters, strip club addicts, girlfriend-batterers, drug addicts, drunk drivers, and coaches who allegedly bust up other coaches, but the commish is worried about divisive quotes?"

Previously, Armando had observed this, as he is privy to the Dolphins locker room:

"Pulling his shorts up to his waist and then motioning over to a couple of waiting reporters who wanted to interview him in the Dolphins locker room Wednesday, nose tackle Jason Ferguson used the N-word.

He was talking either to a teammate or one of the reporters who is black, but that didn't matter because the word seemingly floated away -- clearly heard but ignored because, in an NFL locker room, that word is uttered by players practically every day.

Sometimes the N-word is said in jest. Sometimes it is said in anger or rage. Sometimes it is blasted through boom boxes playing rap music. Sometimes it is clustered with taunts about another player's mother or wife or, in extreme vengeance-filled moments, another player's boyfriend.

And this is the NFL Roger Goodell wants to protect from Rush Limbaugh comments?"

I've heard tons of comments on this story, and didn't figure it was worth my time to say anything about it, because the definitive comment was certainly "out there" already. Well, there you go. There was something worth pointing out.

When you top it off with the fact that some of Limbaugh's "divisive comments" are now being shown as fabrications by enemies, and the one comment he did utter, is not racist, but instead an observation of someone else's racism, it's a shame this ever was as "controversy."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Meaningless or meaningful? Hard to say (UPDATED)

If you didn't download copies of all the October 5th filings in Mohave county, you'll have to find them on a site where someone did. They're gone.

Does it mean anything? Hard to say but go check for yourself. It may be, that the documents were not properly redacted.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Press Turmoil and YFZ coverage

I admit it, I've been shopping my CSPD/Swinton story with zero success.

That doesn't mean it won't turn into something. On the one hand you hope for that "Holy Grail" revelation that will turn the tide on the YFZ case if you are like me, on the other hand, no matter what you think of the people involved, it's hard to wish disaster on any of them. Why would I, for instance, want Lt. Maggie Santos to be in the Klieg lights explaining that she supplied voice talent to someone to create the "cry for help" that was the bogus basis of last year's raid? There's a good chance that the story might eventually go that way.

In shopping the story around, as I have shopped several ignored and real stories around, I have found a remarkable declining knowledge base on the raid, the largest child custody case in US History. 18 months later, few in the press really know anything any longer. One of the reasons I can tell someone might well be lying to me when I do some of my own interviewing and research on this story is that, well, I run into a lot of lying witnesses to certain events and on average the lot of them lie transparently. I am able to gauge this by the fuzzy recollections of the press who can barely remember, and then when the events are called to memory have that "dawning awareness" moment when it all clicks. They get on the same page with you, then they still don't care, but it's a useful comparison.

The public is several notches of awareness below the press, but the gap is closing. Not because the public is becoming more aware, but because the press is becoming less so. The YFZ raid is a layered discussion. Most want to dismiss it because "they" gave the kids back and "those men" are creepy molesters and they got caught, right? It's shocking to see the knowledge of the press deteriorate to the level of knowledge of the public at large. It's mostly due to attrition.

Starting with Ben Winslow, major players in the coverage have either switched jobs, or just plain gotten out of the industry. Ben went from the Deseret News, the "in house" publication of the LDS Church to KSL Fox13 in Salt Lake City. Since then I haven't seen him cover much on the FLDS story. He and the paper got awards for their coverage, and he flew the coop.

Then there was Paul Anthony of the San Angelo Standard-Times who inadvertently provided a lot of the really good stuff, not because I think he wanted to, he was just there to stumble upon it. I'm not trying to insult Paul but there were better writers out there covering the story and Paul often made mistakes that he never bothered to correct. Fundamental mistakes, but he was there and if you wanted to hear it first, it was often from Paul. Paul took a job in with the city of San Angelo, and left the business altogether.

Tak Landrock works for KRDO in Denver. At least he does until Friday. He is going to Edward Jones as a broker, I might guess. I wish him well. Outta da business. Can't say I blame any of them. I was a media guy decades ago. It's why I know what a Klieg Light is. The media doesn't pay well and apparently, like a lot of journalists, young Tak was in it to make a difference and said that no one wants an investigative reporter anymore. Not surprising really. With papers going out of business and businesses hurting, no one wants to put the wood to a potential advertiser. Tak also got some details wrong in the early reporting, but also brought a good deal of the details to light about prankster Rozita.

Only the AP's Michelle Roberts and Brooke Adams are left, pretty much, in the sames spots they were when all this started. There are the reporters at the Houston Chronicle that do a fair job, but they are for all intents and purposes about as far away from the issue as I am and their articles are infrequent. I have described Brooke as having an anti FLDS agenda, and I'm not backing off that description. It's regarded as petty and self serving, but it still remains that when it comes to blogs that might be considered FLDS centric, I am numero uno, not by a little, but by a lot, and have been the better part of this entire year. She doesn't link to me, but links instead to anti FLDS blogs, some of them extremely vile and vitriolic. I should say that I'm not numero uno "by a lot" overall, because Bill Medvecky has been number one, and is a very close second these days. With his more frequent posting recently, he may be number one again, and very soon. Brooke doesn't link to him either, and if you could say Bill was a little heavy handed at times, he's better company than Brooke's Kafkaesque accusers, because he has the added virtue of not being anonymous.

One has to assume that Brooke gets a lot of readership at the "Plural Life" blog hosted by the Salt Lake Tribune. She's got a built in feed. She's also a good reporter. I enjoy her writing and have told her so. This is in spite of the fact that in the last year I've found it difficult to trust her as objective. Let's just say she knows how to put on a show as far as I am concerned. ANTI FLDS centric (ok, DOMINATED) blogs have to be assumed to benefit from the "Trickle Down" of Tribune Traffic passing through the Plural Life and then on down to the few sites Brooke lists as places to go for Blog Talk. She's even listed the anonymous authors of those blogs as important sources and places to go in some posts.

Yes, I tend to digress to make points but here it finally is. There is no friendly coverage of the FLDS in the Main Stream Media. The newcomers don't want to know. The story was all over once the last kid went back. The last vestiges of "friendly" coverage are drifting away into the sunset like Tak Landrock. "Friendly" in this case is a qualified word since really all I can say is they listened better and more sincerely and in a couple of instances recently, it seemed like some of them were ready to publish, and got shot down by editorial staff. We're left with those that want to see the FLDS 12 in Texas get convicted and go to jail and thus don't want to write about stories that might lead to their exoneration or escape.

The rest of the media are rookies to the story and have to be brought up to speed, and they don't want to be. They listen politely for about 15 seconds and then you can hear their attention span go brittle and break almost audibly. It's sorta like a sonic boom. These folks are the above mentioned reporters who know about as much about the FLDS raid as the average person on the street, which in today's lingo is NADA. Zero. Nuttin'. When you finally get the light of awareness to go on for them, that's when you hear their attention go south. Their knowledge of the FLDS story is superficial and all they remember are the media talking points which are that there was a fake call, but there was overwhelming incriminating evidence seen at the ranch and what could the Police then do? The creeps were arrested for raping little girls and good riddance. In that atmosphere all the facts in the world don't sell the story, because you can't get anyone to look at the facts.

In this way Texas has already won, and it's going to take a miracle finish to rescue those men, and their families. It's not a victory for them to win on appeal 10 years from now. It's only a victory for the rest of us. And with the way the 12 have already been tried in the public mind, though that victory should come and should be assured, I wouldn't count on it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content